Libya and Just War

By GABRIEL BANDA

Published in:

The Post Newspaper (Paper Edition)

2011 JUNE 11 | LUSAKA, ZAMBIA

Since the Arabia protests, Gabriel Banda, writer and observer of conflict and peace building issues, has closely followed, commented, and cautioned, in his Post Newspaper Lusaka column and some peace building platforms, on issues and lessons about the “Arabia Spring” causes, need for stable transition, the content and practical challenges of the United Nations resolutions on Libya, the Libya civil war, ceasefire issues, lessons for other places, and has brought out questions involving “Just War” principles. The following piece is one of eight of his Arabia pieces that have come out in his regular column in The Post Newspaper. Some his articles can be found in The Post Online at http://www.postzambia.com/post-view_articles.php?topicName=Gabriel+Banda.

WHEN is it right to support or go to war? When, and how, can the act of war be justified? When can use of violence or force be acceptable?

The main questions cannot only apply to governments but are also asked of us in our daily lives around crime, personal relationships, family, group, or community. When is force justified as defence or reaction to threat or unfairness against us?

And when it appears justified, how far can we go on with the force we use? What limits are placed on our actions? We must also consider drawing lines on what is fair use of force and what is action driven by vengeance, revenge, hatred, and self-interest.

For thousands of years, concerned persons have thought about war, justice, and sin. This is not just for preachers, politicians, and academics.

Many persons understand that Nelson Mandela and the Umukonto We Sizwe armed wing of ANC, besides political and diplomatic action, took up the way of force and arms because the apartheid South Africa regime, vowing not to dismantle the evil of apartheid, used violence.

And Kaunda on Violence, by Zambia's first president Kenneth Kaunda, is a deep book on the dilemmas of rulers using their government to assist those waging some armed struggle against regimes that are unjust.

In neighbouring Zimbabwe, Ian Smith and regime had vowed there would be no black rule in his lifetime, not even in a thousand years. So, many worldwide understood and supported why people took up arms against Smith's Rhodesia regime.

But still, some persons were against racism and apartheid in Southern Africa but did not support the use of arms and the war method.

Risks of armed struggle include the concern that after liberation or regime change, some culture of violence may set in a society if there has been insufficient discipline in combatants and some poor political preparation, structures, systems, and practices.

In societies divided by issues like ethnicity, religion, culture, race, and region, things can worsen. And even where some order has been widely achieved after change of an unjust regime, there are still innocent persons that may have been greatly harmed by the war.

Kenneth Kaunda's book also discusses “just war.” I recommend the book to government rulers and officials to compare notes with. Actually not complicated but being basic moral questions, Just War principles concern reasons for going to war, “jus ad bellum” in Latin, and the actual conduct of a war, “jus in bello.” It also considers “jus post bellum”, actions that follow armed conflict.

In some articles, I have discussed the current Arabia and Libya situation. The effects of the Libya intervention will affect all of us, worldwide. Already refugees from North Africa and Arabia are going into Europe and elsewhere.

In the current combined civil and multilateral war in Libya, there are issues about actually going to war and the conduct of the war. These can be asked of all involved—the rebels, NATO and allied forces, and the Gaddafi administration. The issues will have bearing past the armed conflict and will affect many worldwide.

Just War requirements include: just cause, right intention and motive, legitimate authority, being proportionate, and it being a last resort, when other means have failed. And the war should not create problems that will be larger than the problem being dealt with by waging the war. The war must also be able to succeed. For a just war to pass, all factors must be right. It is a total package.

Wisely, considering lessons elsewhere and its complications, initially President Barack Obama declined the “no fly zone.” But France's Nicolas Sarkozy, who seems to hold a guillotine above Gaddafi's head, pushed for, and got, the “no fly zone.”

Later, Barack Obama said the aim of NATO bombing would not be regime change and Gaddafi removal. Although Obama's rule has brought about some progress in relationships in the world and within USA, to be fair to him, Barack Obama has not claimed to be a pacifist, who denounces use of violence and force.

As commander of the USA military and security machine, pacifism is not easy for him to achieve. But being the ideal, pacifism is still a useful moral compass.

For those not governments, it is difficult to justify the attacking of USA on September 11, 2001, leading to many innocent victims and tension around the world. But same concerns about use of violence by militias, terrorist, and non-governmental forces also apply to governments worldwide.

Rulers are in charge of machineries, decisions, and actions that may lead to big negative effects. Many rulers and governments act with little sensitivity to obvious effects, now and in future, on others and themselves. Some are lords of war.

Being governments or using the United Nations system does not excuse persons from responsibility for war-caused harm of the innocent and issues of just war. I believe, as I found that Martin Luther King Jr and others have also stated, that violence and force beget violence. Violent responses lead to violent reactions from those we attack, thus cycles and cultures of violence.

On Libya and aspects of Just War, we note that the cause and demand for democracy, freedom, participation, basic conditions, and peace is always right. But regime change through the method of war is not always right. Huge problems may result for generations.

Neither the rebel “Transitional Council,” supported by NATO forces, nor Gaddafi should be imposed on the people.

There are legitimacy issues around both the rebels and their NATO helping forces. NATO has used UN Resolutions 1970 and 1973 to justify a “no fly zone” and get embedded in the war. Those resolutions are faulty and unbalanced, without sanction on rebel parties continuing war and getting resources of war.

And France, biased and partisan from the beginning, cannot be a good enforcer of a no fly zone. And now motives seem unclear. NATO mentions Gaddafi forces attacking civilians as their justification for the war. Some observers mention that when civilians take up arms, they are considered combatants. And how many non-combatant civilians have been killed or harmed by raids of NATO, rebels, and Gaddafi forces?

And some war actions and targets of the NATO forces in Libya violate the UN Resolutions and the organisation's peace role. Violated, legitimacy does not hold.

In Libya, the war, or its continuation, was not a last resort. There have been windows for dialogue and organised transition but the rebels and NATO, openly preferring force and war to overcome Gaddafi and regime, have refused.

And International Criminal Court, ICC, prosecutors complicate things by bringing in another front aiming to charge Gaddafi for crimes. The ICC timing will prolong the conflict, leading to more deaths and suffering.

As to success, I believe that where there are significantly sized war parties and supporters, a military victory cannot forever hold. Neither Gaddafi nor the rebels can stably rule society after militarily overpowering the other.
The defeated may go underground and, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, later resurface. I believe some detailed audit will show that the fighting in Libya by the rebels and NATO forces is not Just War. Some forces already on the act or path of war will want to find or create reasons that will justify their war. Yet there are no sides to take, but truth to follow.

Gabriel C. Banda is a poet, columnist, writer, social development worker, and observer of conflict and peace processes. He has been a volunteer special assistant to Dr Kenneth Kaunda, Zambia's first president, when Dr Kaunda was out of office. Gabriel Banda holds an MA in Peace Studies from University of Bradford, England.